Godfrey Rwambuka Mugyenyi1, Joseph Ngonzi1, Blair Johnson Wylie2,3, Jessica Elizabeth Haberer3,4,5, Adeline Adwoa Boatin3,4,6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 4. Center for Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: vital sign monitoring is a key component of safe facility-based obstetric care. We aimed to assess quality of care around vital sign monitoring during obstetric hospitalizations in a tertiary-care facility in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: retrospective review of obstetric records at a tertiary care facility. We assessed documentation of vital signs including fetal and maternal heart rate, and maternal blood pressure, temperature, oxygen saturation and urine output. The primary outcome was the quality of vital sign monitoring (high- versus low-quality based on frequency of monitoring). We compared quality of monitoring with timing of admission, presence of complication, and delivery mode using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: among 360 records of obstetric admissions (94% of a planned random sample), 96% documented a delivery. Of these, 8% of pregnant women and 11% of postpartum women had high-quality vital sign monitoring documented on initial evaluation at admission. For women delivering during the hospitalization, 0.8% of women delivering had high-quality monitoring in the first four hours postpartum, with higher rates of high-quality monitoring in women delivering vaginally compared to those delivered by cesarean (1.4% versus 0%, p<0.001). There were no differences in rates of quality monitoring by time of admission, or obstetric complication. CONCLUSION: very few obstetric hospitalizations had high-quality vital sign monitoring. Attention towards improving vital sign monitoring is a critical need. Copyright: Godfrey Rwambuka Mugyenyi et al.
INTRODUCTION: vital sign monitoring is a key component of safe facility-based obstetric care. We aimed to assess quality of care around vital sign monitoring during obstetric hospitalizations in a tertiary-care facility in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: retrospective review of obstetric records at a tertiary care facility. We assessed documentation of vital signs including fetal and maternal heart rate, and maternal blood pressure, temperature, oxygen saturation and urine output. The primary outcome was the quality of vital sign monitoring (high- versus low-quality based on frequency of monitoring). We compared quality of monitoring with timing of admission, presence of complication, and delivery mode using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: among 360 records of obstetric admissions (94% of a planned random sample), 96% documented a delivery. Of these, 8% of pregnant women and 11% of postpartum women had high-quality vital sign monitoring documented on initial evaluation at admission. For women delivering during the hospitalization, 0.8% of women delivering had high-quality monitoring in the first four hours postpartum, with higher rates of high-quality monitoring in women delivering vaginally compared to those delivered by cesarean (1.4% versus 0%, p<0.001). There were no differences in rates of quality monitoring by time of admission, or obstetric complication. CONCLUSION: very few obstetric hospitalizations had high-quality vital sign monitoring. Attention towards improving vital sign monitoring is a critical need. Copyright: Godfrey Rwambuka Mugyenyi et al.
Entities:
Keywords:
Vital sign monitoring; childbirth; labor and delivery; postpartum care; quality of care
Authors: David Bishop; Robert A Dyer; Salome Maswime; Reitze N Rodseth; Dominique van Dyk; Hyla-Louise Kluyts; Janat T Tumukunde; Farai D Madzimbamuto; Abdulaziz M Elkhogia; Andrew K N Ndonga; Zipporah W W Ngumi; Akinyinka O Omigbodun; Simbo D Amanor-Boadu; Eugene Zoumenou; Apollo Basenero; Dolly M Munlemvo; Coulibaly Youssouf; Gabriel Ndayisaba; Akwasi Antwi-Kusi; Veekash Gobin; Patrice Forget; Bernard Mbwele; Henry Ndasi; Sylvia R Rakotoarison; Ahmadou L Samateh; Ryad Mehyaoui; Ushmaben Patel-Mujajati; Chaibou M Sani; Tonya M Esterhuizen; Thandinkosi E Madiba; Rupert M Pearse; Bruce M Biccard Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: John Mukisa; Isha Grant; Jonathan Magala; Andrew S Ssemata; Patrick Z Lumala; Josaphat Byamugisha Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Natasha Housseine; Marieke C Punt; Ali Gharib Mohamed; Said Mzee Said; Nanna Maaløe; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Tarek Meguid; Arie Franx; Diederick E Grobbee; Joyce L Browne; Marcus J Rijken Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 3.223